If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Wills's Sweet Chestnut

This was an old tin I got which happened to have a little baccy left in it. I tried one bowl but all I got was a musty funk type of flavor, it had gone to the angels long ago. I would suspect it may have had some sort of nutty flavoring, but now there was no scent left as it had been sitting for who knows how long...

...the most interesting thing was the cut and presentation. The tin is tall and narrow unlike most standard cutter-tops, and the coins were stacked up like potato chips in a Pringles can, which was pretty cool.

One thing that this stuff highlighted for me was with the precision of production, specifically that perfect cut and the ultimate leaf compression.

They used machinery and methods that in my opinion will ever remain unmatched.

Even the Danish companies who once made much of the UK legacy brands under contract couldn't come very close to exactly matching, even in spite of having the original UK machinery and blend recipe formulas.

Large factory UK-made pipe tobacco is likely gone forever and will never be seen again on the huge scale with what it once operated, which is sad, but there still remains unopened traces from the glory days, and there is a very good and real reason why some pipesmokers are willing to spend large amounts of cash on those old sealed UK-made tins.

Max Engels from Pipes2Smoke wrote a short missive in his latest update and I agree with most of his points.

" We are now seeing various tobaccos being reintroduced under their previous well-regarded names, Dobie’s Four Squares, Bengal Slices, Capstan, Murrays, John Cotton’s, etc. These are marketing ploys as different companies make the tobaccos in the EU or the USA. They are what I call fake tobaccos. The equivalent of the Chinese Cherry Car Company making a car and calling it Hispano Suiza, nobody would accept it as remotely as the original. It would be regarded as a joke.

Famous old UK made tobaccos were made using skills that have long died, equipment that often no longer exists and water totally different than in the countries where now made.

Considering these facts, why would anybody even assume that these reintroductions – are similar to the originals? The only one that is the same - excepting for ageing - is Balkan Sobranie because it uses similar water, the original recipe and people with the same skill set.

Interestingly McClelland’s and Gawith have always made their own mixtures & flakes and never tried to trade off a former great name. Both are superb tobacco makers. Various companies that never achieved renown or fame from their own creations make all these reintroduced blends. They now try to jump to the fore with pale imitations of the originals. This is the most telling point as to their blending skills or lack thereof.

Many of the younger pipe smokers have never had the opportunity to try the originals, understandably. I see that in the tobacco reviews sites, where one review is of the original 30 plus years old and another is the reintroduced version. The reviews are completely different. Simply, because the two same named tobaccos have little if any similarity.

Many of these reintroduced tobaccos are decent but beyond that it’s just marketing. It would at least be honest to say based on the idea of X."

But,
such stuff has been going on for a very long time,
at least since the early 70's,
and such is the way of the world...

One thing that this stuff highlighted for me was with the precision of production, specifically that perfect cut and the ultimate leaf compression.

They used machinery and methods that in my opinion will ever remain unmatched.

Even the Danish companies who once made much of the UK legacy brands under contract couldn't come very close to exactly matching, even in spite of having the original UK machinery and blend recipe formulas.

Large factory UK-made pipe tobacco is likely gone forever and will never be seen again on the huge scale with what it once operated, which is sad, but there still remains unopened traces from the glory days, and there is a very good and real reason why some pipesmokers are willing to spend large amounts of cash on those old sealed UK-made tins.

Max Engels from Pipes2Smoke wrote a short missive in his latest update and I agree with most of his points.

" We are now seeing various tobaccos being reintroduced under their previous well-regarded names, Dobie’s Four Squares, Bengal Slices, Capstan, Murrays, John Cotton’s, etc. These are marketing ploys as different companies make the tobaccos in the EU or the USA. They are what I call fake tobaccos. The equivalent of the Chinese Cherry Car Company making a car and calling it Hispano Suiza, nobody would accept it as remotely as the original. It would be regarded as a joke.

Famous old UK made tobaccos were made using skills that have long died, equipment that often no longer exists and water totally different than in the countries where now made.

Considering these facts, why would anybody even assume that these reintroductions – are similar to the originals? The only one that is the same - excepting for ageing - is Balkan Sobranie because it uses similar water, the original recipe and people with the same skill set.

Interestingly McClelland’s and Gawith have always made their own mixtures & flakes and never tried to trade off a former great name. Both are superb tobacco makers. Various companies that never achieved renown or fame from their own creations make all these reintroduced blends. They now try to jump to the fore with pale imitations of the originals. This is the most telling point as to their blending skills or lack thereof.

Many of the younger pipe smokers have never had the opportunity to try the originals, understandably. I see that in the tobacco reviews sites, where one review is of the original 30 plus years old and another is the reintroduced version. The reviews are completely different. Simply, because the two same named tobaccos have little if any similarity.

Many of these reintroduced tobaccos are decent but beyond that it’s just marketing. It would at least be honest to say based on the idea of X."

But,
such stuff has been going on for a very long time,
at least since the early 70's,
and such is the way of the world...

Yep, agree with all the above. Could easily sum it up with the old saying, 'people aren't stupid'.
Lovely tin BTW, make a nice pipe cleaner holder that would. Simon.

...saw the new Murray's blends and thought perhaps that they were back in business. Thankfully he is an active forum member and seeks accurate informations, however, there are plenty more out there who may never know otherwise and have misconceptions about what the product actually is.

The revival of old hallowed brand names is mostly a marketing strategy, I agree with Max on that point.

The concept of such resurrection plays on something known as consumer good will.

The brands achieved a certain "holy aura" of reverence due to the excellence of their original manifestations and the legend has a way of lingering.

A similar analogy would be to say that a made-in-France Sasieni was a "match" to the earlier London-made examples,
which is quite absurd of course.

In the case of the Danes, they either inherited or bought the rights to produce the heritage UK blends, but badly fumbled the ball as most noticeably in the case of St. Bruno where they could have exerted a little energy into historical research and try to emulate the beautiful older tin art and stay true to the "standard dark flake" recipe, but instead they did the lazy thing and even diluted it in the process (I'm talking about the US tinned version here) and now it is totally neutered in the same manner that Orlik so tamed the glory of what once was Erinmore Flake, one of the most unique pipe tobaccos ever which they reduced to a generic tasting also-ran.

In the case of the Americans, it's a case of buying lapsed trademarks, which is a common thing nowadays and such abandoned TM's are known as "zombie trademarks"...

"A trademark is deemed abandoned if the owner of a trademark ceases use for a protracted time period, and/or with no intent to resume the use. For the most part, abandonment is the end of the story, and others can begin use of the mark without legal ramifications or risk of consumer confusion.

But what about when a trademark is so well known that even after a period of non-use, it still resonates with consumers as a source identifier? Such can be the case with a sufficiently well-known brand: consumers may continue to associate the brand with the original owner long after it disappears from the marketplace. This is a “zombie” trademark – dead to the market, surviving only on the residual goodwill that lives in the minds of consumers.

Here's a definition from the Patent, Copyright & Trademark: An Intellectual Property Desk Reference :zombie trademark
Abandoned trademarks that still have brand name recognition are referred to as zombie trademarks. Also known as "ghost brands", "orphan brands", and "graveyard brands," these revived marks pose a conundrum in trademark law. On the one hand, anyone is free to use an abandoned trademark; on the other, the new owner rarely replicates the quality formerly associated with the brand.

Residual goodwill is often talked about in regard to zombie trademarks:

But a very relevant counterpoint is brought up by this writer:

"Commentators have speculated that zombie trademarks have the potential to harm consumers and that the law may not (but perhaps should) be equipped to address this. For example, a predatory marketer could revive a dead brand replete with residual goodwill and bring to market a product inferior to the original. Consumers might scoop up zombie Brand X Widgets, not suspecting that they are substandard and designed to part nostalgic fools from their money. The zombie owner reaps the rewards and consumers are left disappointed. Unfortunate though this scenario may seem, does it amount to actionable consumer confusion? Perhaps not.

It is important to remember that brands change hands. They may be sold and acquired with all their related consumer goodwill. Is a zombie brand significantly different from a live brand that has found its way to a new owner? Ideally, an acquiring brand owner has the best of intentions, but may fail in its mission. There is never a guarantee that brand quality will not diminish. Consumer disappointment in a zombie brand that changed hands in the afterlife may be no more poignant (or actionable) than consumer disappointment in a brand that changed hands while still alive."